Concealed Carry And Permits
A Win for Freedom in New Mexico
10th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down New Mexico's seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases
📅
✍️By ZRIntel Editorial Team📍Santa Fe, New Mexico
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that New Mexicos seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases is unconstitutional, marking a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates. The case, known as Ortega v. Grisham, was brought forth by the NRA and other groups challenging the waiting period, which was enacted by New Mexico in an attempt to reduce impulsive violence by allowing a 'cooling-off' period after a gun purchase. The law required that individuals wait seven days after purchasing a firearm before they could take possession of it, despite passing a background check showing they were legally allowed to own a firearm. The plaintiffs in this case argued that the law infringed upon their Second Amendment rights, which guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. In the majority opinion, Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote that the New Mexico law violated the Second Amendment, stating, Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms. Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendments scope. The court further stated that such laws are a modern invention and do not align with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. The ruling pointed out that historical analogues used by the state, such as laws prohibiting intoxicated individuals from possessing firearms, were insufficient to justify the seven-day waiting period. The court emphasized that, unlike other regulations, New Mexico's waiting period assumes all purchasers are inherently dangerous until they cool off, which contradicts the Second Amendments protection for law-abiding citizens. The state of New Mexico had argued that the law was intended to reduce violence and ensure background checks were fully completed, but the court found that these justifications did not meet the constitutional standards. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham expressed disappointment with the decision, asserting that the law was designed to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights. She pointed to other exceptions in the law for law enforcement officers, family transfers, and concealed carry permit holders. Despite the governors objections, the ruling has been hailed by Second Amendment advocates as a crucial win in the fight against overly restrictive gun control laws. The Mountain States Legal Foundation, which supported the plaintiffs, praised the decision, calling it a key step in dismantling similar laws across the country. John Commerford, the executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, stated, The 10th Circuit has sided with the NRA and held that radical waiting period laws are indeed unconstitutional. This decision is expected to have ripple effects in other states that have similar waiting period laws, such as Colorado, Utah, and Washington. This case is part of a broader trend of legal challenges to gun control laws, particularly those that impose delays or additional requirements on lawful gun owners. The ruling is seen as a critical moment in the ongoing battle to protect Second Amendment rights against what some see as unconstitutional restrictions.